Unschedule a post. Turns a scheduled post back into a draft. Send {} as the body.
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"id": "<id>"
},
"name": "unschedule_post"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Numeric id. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds real value beyond the annotations by disclosing the resulting state (draft, content preserved), which is not derivable from destructiveHint=false or idempotentHint=false. However it is silent on what happens if the post is not currently scheduled, and its body instruction is wrong, which undermines trust in the rest of the behavioral claim.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, which is good structure. But the final sentence is not just filler, it is incorrect, so brevity does not earn it a higher score.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter, likely idempotent-in-practice state change, the description covers purpose but omits error behavior and, more seriously, contradicts the required parameter contract. With no output schema to explain results, the description needed to be accurate about the call shape and is not.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline would be 3, but the description actively misleads: it says "Send {} as the body" while the schema requires an integer `id` and forbids additional properties. An agent following the description literally would send an invalid request.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
"Unschedule a post" names a specific verb and resource, and "Turns a scheduled post back into a draft" states the concrete state transition, which clearly separates it from schedule_post, publish_post, and delete_post in the sibling list. It stops short of explicitly naming those alternatives, but the effect is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The draft outcome implies when to use this rather than delete_post (you want to keep the content), but the description never says so outright and gives no preconditions such as the post currently being scheduled. Usage is inferable rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.